Sweden’s Covid-19 experiment didn’t work out so well

I’ve found the “Our would in data” site pretty easy to use and useful:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

(I do wish that people making graphs like the above would use brighter, or bolder, or more distinct colors. I suppose it’s difficult when there are lots of countries represented – this is sometimes a problem w/ the site I link to above – but when there are only a few, it shouldn’t take as long for me to figure out which line is for which country as it often does, and did here.)

For very good data on Iceland: https://www.covid.is/data

I’ve got a comment in moderation, probably due to having 3 links in it.
Eszter, would you please pluck it to safety?

Here is a good one:

https://minshall.gitlab.io/covid-19

doh … Belgium has one of the highest population densities.

@8 ”Finally, as this is a left-wing site, the UK left wing had a major push at the back end last year of the cost in lives of Austerity. Lots of stuff about Tory murderers due to the political cuts. Funnily enough, now that the UK left are demanding long-term incarceration and consequent destruction of the economy, those calculations seem to have been forgotten. ‘

Er…..what?

Germany and the UK have similar population densities, and the UK is doing much worse than Germany. France, Italy, Spain and the UK with a wide variation in population densities have all done similarly to one another and very badly because they have permitted massacres in their care homes, as has the US. The UK at least had the benefit of early warning but failed to act, so that even among the states whose performance it resembles it is doing the worst. But Dipper is here to give us the talking points from the Mail and Telegraph.

Dipper @8 (sigh): … the UK left wing had a major push at the back end last year of the cost in lives of Austerity.

10 years of austerity -> progressive erosion of state capacity -> continued penny-pinching -> lethally under-resourced response to the pandemic -> 30,000 deaths, or whatever it is by now, including one or two more while I was typing this. Some of those are austerity deaths, even if they come in one big lump.

That’s your causal chain, right there. You’re welcome.

“As some of you may know, Sweden tried a different approach to the Coronavirus pandemic by avoiding a lockdown and major closures. Did it work? Not so much.”

According to your own data (the graph you showed on this very post), Sweden ended up in the middle of the pack. What’s so bad about that?

anon

I look at the change in the case load (or death rate) over time, on a log scale.
Right now all the major European countries look good, new cases/deaths are coming down nicely. US and Canada OTOH are stuck on deadly plateaus.

Also the underlying conditions vary widely across countries (as well as within). Its not clear why the growth rate in Africa has been a fraction of that seen in the advanced countries. Is it because of the climate? Is it because of the relative youthfullness of the population? Is it because the lower quality of the healthcare systems means people were exposed to some lesser illnesses that confer partial immunity? Is it because old vaccines such as for tuberculosis which were discontinued in more economically advanced countries confer partial immunity? Learning the answers to questions like this will be crucially important going forward.

“are they going to keep every visitor in quaratine for years? say goodbye to tourism for several years? ”

I’m assuming the answer to this is yes (at least outside bubbles like Aust-NZ). International tourism is obviously a significant activity, but it’s not worth tens of thousands of lives, or the costs of a permanent semi-lockdown of the rest of the economy.

And since we can’t easily travel overseas, domestic tourism will take up a lot of the slack. We’ve just relaxed some restrictions here, and booking hotel accommodation for a holiday is turning out quite challenging – everyone has the same idea.

of the 2,300 Swedish deaths, 150 people were under 60 years old. less than 400 were under 70 years old. every death is tragedy, but most of these people did not have that many years left

Words fail.

much of the world has shutdown due to Coronavirus with many saying we cannot lift lockdowns if there are any excess deaths, so it’s worth mentioning a couple of pre-Covid stats.

Road deaths in the UK have been in the 1,700-1,900 range per annum for the last few years. All these are preventable by banning all road travel. There would obviously be a significant economic hit but it would save lives.

Prior to the introduction of a vaccine in 1999, Meningitis C caused significant number of deaths in the UK mainly in the late teens early 20s age group (“up to 78”according to the BBC). I don’t remember anyone arguing for closures of Universities in order to stop the spread.

This is not to argue that the current response is right or wrong, just that societies have up to now accepted preventable deaths often in young people as a price worth paying for a particular standard of living.

@carl d, life expectancy for a 70-year old is another 17 years, on average. For an 80-year old, its another 10 years. For a 90-year old, it’s still another 4 years. Most old people are not at death’s door.

One consequence of the Covid experience and the lockdown is going to be major changes to how academic institutions manage computer code. Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College team produced calculations that have been responsible for much of the world locking down with consequent destruction of billions of pounds of value and collateral damage to healthcare capability. The publication of this code has lead to complete shock in parts of the ‘professional’ IT community at what it sees as a lack of basic and essential practices.

There is debate about this. Much of the academic community seems to be saying that this is how academia works and the heavy bureaucracy of commercial IT isn’t really appropriate for academia. The commercial world, of which I was once a member, is generally shaking its head and saying that we ended up with the whole source code/version control/release/regression test/functional testing/full audit process precisely because we had experience of the mistakes that get made when you don’t go through that.

The questions will not just get asked about the Imperial college team but about how the whole structure of University management, research grant awards, etc managed to seemingly completely miss the need for standards round modelling. I would expect and hope that one consequence is that funding is linked to proper control and testing. If I worked in academia and wrote and used computer models I’d be getting ready right now for the inevitable inquisition.

Please please stop talking about herd immunity. It’s not herd immunity, it’s reaching the peak of infections. It should be called “Johnson Immunity” and sneered at. Here is why it is so stupid, please stop talking about it. Also, the Swedish government denies they are pursuing a Johnson Immunity strategy, so it’s even more irrelevant.

As always Dipper is wrong. The ONS has calculated mortality in the UK and found it doubled relative to the long-term average. 70% or so of the extra deaths are COVID. It is simply insane to compare them to road deaths. Dipper notes that there are 1900 road deaths a year, but this virus has killed 5x that in a week.

And of course Dipper is reciting the lockdown-skeptics criticism of Ferguson’s work, because he is drip-fed by right wing idiots. Incidentally, Ferguson’s work isn’t being relied on by anyone in the world but the UK government – nobody in Asia believes this virus as a reproduction number as low as his estimates, and in the USA they are relying on cubic fits in Excel by Dipper’s mates.

The convergence of virus and climate denial, complete with code audits, is very <chef’s kiss>.

For what it’s worth, I have a lot of sympathy with Kevin Drum’s take here that we really just don’t know all that well yet who has done best here. Of course, that doesn’t mean we should just throw up our hands, or not try to learn, but I think it does mean we shouldn’t be too fast to generalize or think we know what is working or why:

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/05/we-dont-know-yet-which-country-has-done-the-best-job-fighting-covid-19/

(I’ll add that it seems to me that lots of people seem to be mistaking claims about sufficient conditions for necessary ones – so, if density is very helpful in spreading the virus, pointing to cases where it’s spread despite the city or country not being dense doesn’t at all undermine that claim. It only shows that density isn’t a necessary condition for fast spreading. But is anyone saying that? Not that I see. Other examples are easy to find.)

John Quiggin: maybe domestic tourism can make up for much of the lost int’l tourism in NZ. but not in some other countries where a lot of the GDP comes from tourism.

JQ @ 25: “And since we can’t easily travel overseas, domestic tourism will take up a lot of the slack. We’ve just relaxed some restrictions here, and booking hotel accommodation for a holiday is turning out quite challenging – everyone has the same idea.”

Worth sparing a thought for the many places around the world which are heavily dependent on international tourism (Fiji, Tahiti, Bali, Nepal, New Caledonia, much of the Caribbean – just off the top of my head; I am sure you can think of others). They are being hit hard.

Maybe there is a spam filter here that deletes posts with too many links automatically before the post shows up in moderation? Also did one with 3 links which is unlikely to have offended a human moderator.

“people have made a judgement call that the benefits of being able to travel outweigh the costs of road death”

It’s a side point, but no, nobody has ‘made a judgement call’ on this, ever. The situation on roads has emerged over decades. Externalities extend beyond death, disability and injury to include the health risks of sedentary behaviour, the stress of driving, the pollution of driving, the global warming contribution, etc. Nonetheless, people ignore most of that (after all, some of the evidence is more recent), whole populations are habituated, and it is politically very difficult to get much traction on the issue at all.

I’m not sure it’s soon enough to say what the graph shows. The slope of Sweden’s curve is less than the US’s. It’s less than Switzerland’s at its steepest. We don’t know if or when it will plateau out. I understand the authorities had goals for this move that aren’t being met in the event, but that’s probably a different question.

It strikes me there is less talk about how Singapore, which at one point was the poster boy for excellent response, is apparently failing to manage the outbreak there.

COVID-19 lacks a lot of the characteristics that have made previous epidemics controllable, but it’s beginning to seem that it may have others that make it less scary than it seemed at first. I hope so. Beyond travel, people are going to want to – need to – see a dentist, have a melanoma biopsied, get their blood pressure medication rechecked. People’s glasses will break. Ovens and dishwashers will break (in MA I think repairmen are allowed to operate, but I’m sure people are putting off repairs as long as possible on the quite reasonable principle that more distancing is always good). We’ve seen, not only a rise in home deaths, but a statistical underreporting of heart attacks relative to the usual value, suggesting people aren’t getting medical help for those either.

To Amplify on Zamfir. Anyone with any notion of how math works and can recognize a differential equation, when given the case fatality rate and the fact that the virus is highly contagious could by back of the envelope reasoning estimate similar death tolls. I found it astounding that it took that simulation to convince the powers that be of the near-obvious conclusions.

I accept the point Charlie W @ 49 makes, and retract my oversimplification. I should, perhaps, have said:

It is possible (so some degree) to evaluate the approximate cost of road death. It is possible to evaluate (to some degree) the approximate benefit of transportation. It is (in principle) possible to make a decision about whether or not the costs of driving outweigh the benefits on an individual basis[1].

Of course, this is a little more complicated and obscures the point I wanted to make, which is that many people have made an effort to make driving safer and not just accepted that X people will die a year. Which is arguably one reason why seatbelts are mandatory (in my area).

[1] I have done so, which is one reason why I don’t drive (on an individual and personal basis, the problems which come from driving a car are, for me, not outweighed by the benefits).

Zamfir: you write ” the only currently known way to protect old people, is to keep the virus suppressed in the entire population.” I have a lot of sympathy for this view, but the virus is so contagious it may not work, according to some researchers. unless you are in lockdown for a very long time. if you are in lockdown for a very long time, you have to accept the fact that saving your parents means risking your childrens’ future. My students are about to garduate and their prospects don’t look too good… I have a father who is 70+ with underlying conditions. of course I want him to have 5-10 more good years. but at any cost? I think we cannot avoid this discussion. we current only count lives saved per dollar when we put up speeding limits and fences for moose/boar. but this issue will not go away

”
I’m not sure it’s soon enough to say what the graph shows. The slope of Sweden’s curve is less than the US’s. It’s less than Switzerland’s at its steepest. We don’t know if or when it will plateau out”
Take a look at the link of John H, it has better information. The peak in Sweden is clearly past, with IC patients dropping since early April, and the peak in deaths was about a week later.

The decline in Sweden is slower than in other places. Eyballing, new IC patients are about half the peak, while in France for example it’s 1/6, in the Netherlands 1/5 (these countries because I could quickly find comparable numbers)

Rupert Beale explains, among other things, why the idea of herd immunity through infection is unlikely for Coronaviruses. So if you’re betting the house (or the mass deaths of others) on this option, please stop.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n09/rupert-beale/short-cuts

Darn, those should have been bullet points. Sorry.

But yeah, taking advice from a climate denying failed banister is “not ideal “….

It would be a severe reflection on somebody to have failed as a banister.

” The problem is, we already don’t all live in isolation – essential workers, after all, still work, and I am able to buy groceries and even use public transport and go into my (not particularly essential) work (providing I abide by the measures required to do so, such as wearing a mask, etc.)”

Crucial point. No one is in a real absolute lockdown in the west. To what degree and with which emphasice we are constraint – amount of authoritarian control, ban on private or work related contacts, schools etc. varies. In a way it is arbitrary to classify Sweden as the far off special case, when it is many ways just one end of spectrum at which e.g. Germany might be closer to Sweden than Italy.

Worth adding that there is a strong bias towards favouring work and short term gdp over private contacts everywhere, which annoys me to no end.

@61

From that article.

‘How quickly a vaccine can be rolled out is another matter. I have a bet with a colleague at the Scripps Institute. He thinks it will be four years’.

Well let’s hope he is right, because 18 months is an unprecedented period to essentially put the economy on hold, and if it’s 4 years, then you are essentially talking about an effect on the economy of a small war (or a large one). This is assuming the virus doesn’t mutate, of course. How successful the vaccine will be is another question.

https://independencedaily.co.uk

I clicked on that link, and the first thing I saw was a headline beginning ‘Your Daily Betrayal’.

I think that tells me as much as I need to know.

Dipper @ 72

A response:

”so to that extent it is a choice to grant people the freedom to travel by road and they do that knowingly accepting the risk, just as going outside and meeting g people knowingly involves taking a risk of catching Covid.”

But, as I already pointed out, if we accept the framing that driving is a result of cost benefit analysis (which Charlie W has pointed out isn’t really true) and that the benefits to letting covid19 spread outweigh the costs (which hasn’t been demonstrated) there is still a major issue:

As I said before, we don’t just let people drive – there are a lot of rules in place to maximise safety. You have to take a test and prove proficiency. You have to wear a seatbelt. You cannot exceed speed limits (which are reduced in urban environments, to prevent accidents with bystanders).

If we extend the analogy, it can be argued that lockdowns are akin to speed limits – they don’t prevent you from going outside (most European countries allow for daily exercise, getting groceries, and various sectors already at or returning to work) but limit the potential harm by slowing the spread (in the same way speed limits do not prevent you from driving, but minimise harm if you accidently plough into a pedestrian).

So even if I grant you far more than you have demonstrated, there is still a very good argument for measures (including “lockdowns”).

I hope the analogy makes my point a little clearer.

“Neil Ferguson. He has a model which has been cited round the world as having been instrumental in putting the world in lockdown.”

Please demonstrate your assertion. Because even UK scientists (surely those most likely to be influenced by a UK scientist) disagree[1].

Moreover, I will offer an additional point which you may want to consider. Lockdowns have been previously employed in Asia as a result of the SARS epidemic. Are you going to suggest that Neil Ferguson’s model is so instrumental to lockdown policies that it has been a key part of influencing Asian pandemic policies for 17 years?

If not, then perhaps it is possible that lockdown measures come a result of general consensus amongst experts and not because of one individual. And if that is the case, whatever issues you may have with the Ferguson model are irrelevant – even if we assume he is completely wrong and his model is complete nonsense (something you have failed to demonstrate in any way), if I measure the speed at which a tennis ball falls incorrectly it does not invalidate gravitational theory.

As David Hume taught us, the confidence in a proposition should be proportional to the evidence in support. It isn’t enough to attack the claim lockdowns are effective – you have to demonstrate that they are ineffective by making your own arguments and supporting them with evidence.

”The conversation of “We are locking down on the basis of the evidence provided by this computer model”, “your model is rubbish”, “we would probably have locked down anyway”, does not play well for the person with the computer model.”

Science is, ultimately speaking, a collaborative endeavour. Standing on the shoulders of giants, and all that. I can’t think of any major hypotheses or models which are accepted on the basis of just one person – at the very least independent confirmation is required, and often multiple lines of evidence from multiple different groups (often each trying to demonstrate problems in the hypothesis) before it becomes widely accepted.

No one person dominates an entire field, so saying Ferguson’s model is not the sole (or even primary) for lockdowns being adopted everywhere they have actually says very little about the person with the model – it says a lot about how science is typically carried out.

That you don’t seem to realise that multiple experts, relying on multiple lines of evidence, coming to similar conclusions is not only strengthens validity of lockdowns – but is also how science in general is carried out – is bizarre.

“Dipper is like X. X is stupid,”

Firstly, and I will say this as mildly as I can given the circumstances, do not insult my relatives. Not only did I not say X is stupid (in many ways I think they are very intelligent), I resent quite considerably your doing so. It is pretty rude of you, and I think – in the unlikely event you were ever to meet them – you owe them an apology.

My point was not actually trying to make some bizarre argument. It was, in fact, exactly what I said it was – I was curious if what they believed is a common view amongst people with similar media consumption, or if it was not. Apparently you think it is a ridiculous argument – that would seem to imply it is not widely accepted, and not something they’ve got from the media. In which case, you have answered my question – and the insult was not necessary.

”It is a typical diversionary ploy when you have no actual answers.”

I have already given you some responses. If you don’t think they are convincing, you are entitled to do so. I think they are, and are major holes in your analogies and accusations.

Firstly, you have yet to address the idea that we regulate the harms of driving – so surely “regulating” the harms of a pandemic (by trying to reduce the number of people coming into close proximity) is not ridiculous.

Secondly, you have not demonstrated that the Ferguson model is wrong, nor have you demonstrated that without it lockdowns (where adopted) would not be a key measure by general consensus of the experts of those countries.

It might be worth considering those points further.

[1] Ferguson has stepped down after personal misconduct (breaking lockdown rules) not due to any demonstration of scientific misconduct. These UK scientists make a response, which essentially says that he has been one voice amongst many – exactly what I would expect and hope for in any good field of science (which should rely on evidence and robust discussion, and many results from many groups independently confirming each other).

The letter can be found (as of 12/05/2020) here, and is signed by more than 25 prominent scientists from relevant fields:

https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vSxP91cr4TOPVi9gwW4mGL9BL2wyQAVjFOw-pB2aRe3uXXXIfyDrJpef5Qp0B8_l9en6buM0LTjRSYq/pub

@ notGoodenough

thanks for the considered reply

“If we extend the analogy, it can be argued that lockdowns are akin to speed limits – they don’t prevent you from going outside … but limit the potential harm by slowing the spread”

That was exactly the UK governments ‘Herd Immunity’ policy. That we should reduce the rate of spread and avoid the spread reaching vulnerable people so health services are not overwhelmed and Herd Immunity builds. That now seems to have changed into a scheme to prevent any deaths at all, which is fairly impossible in the way that avoiding any deaths at all is impossible in modern road travel. But all these policies, as you note, are a regions of a continuum.

I’ve looked at your reference on Ferguson, but it doesn’t help your or their case. It is not true that has discretion was used to undermine the scientific case, it was the code review articles that undermined the scientific case. The letter states “while Prof Ferguson is undoubtedly an influential scientist”. Well, I think people are entitled to ask why someone whose model fails to meet what the ‘professional’ software industry regard as basic standards is influential. As I said above, it is the Scientific establishment who are undermined by the criticism of Ferguson’s code, not (just) Ferguson. If you are the head of something your job is largely to uphold standards, because if you don’t then why should anyone else? So senior people in academia need to think hard right now about the standards of coding they expect. And the question of whether it is ‘wrong’ misses the point. We believe in science because of the process, the rigorous experimental testing that is undergone. Without proper process we have no reason for believing that anything is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

I don’t know whether the lockdown is necessary. There is some evidence (ironically from Ferguson’s model) that getting R0 below 1 was achieved by the early hand-washing and social distancing advice and lockdown hasn’t achieved anything extra. But conclusive evidence is hard so everything is a judgement.

As for your relative, the case you gave is a conspiracy theory. Lots of people seem to believe conspiracy theories, but I don’t in general. The belief that anyone who disagrees with you has fallen for a conspiracy theory is in itself a kind of conspiracy theory. I think I’m entitled to be annoyed at the suggestion that I fall for conspiracy theories. I may be wrong but do read quite widely and try to be critical.

I’m getting very pissed off on the tone of the UK press and much Labour criticism, that the UK government is useless and incompetent etc. If one were to choose a UK political to criticise then surely it would be Sadiq Khan. As mayor of London he has overseen a reduction in the services that forced people onto packed tubes, and failed to provide PPE for transport workers resulting in higher death rates for them than the general population. But not a question or word of criticism is going his way. It is almost as if journalists and politicians are using a crisis to advance their own personal political views rather than any serious analysis.

I don’t think there is a magic set of policies out there. It’s a crisis, so by definition we are outside the business-as-usual envelope and making stuff up as we go along. The notion that had the UK locked down earlier thousand of lives would have been saved for instance is just supposition. I have a friend who was calling for shutting down international’s travel (to his MP) at the end of January, but tens of thousands of Britains were in Italy skiing, or in Spain playing golf, etc, and probably had the virus then. Were we seriously going to quarantine 50,000 people for two weeks?

Jesus, Dipper really has derailed what could have been an educational conversation. I mean, Carl D, I might disagree with, but he’s not militantly anti-rational-thought. Ah, well. I gave up trying to read some way down the comment thread. Congratulations, Dipper.

At this point, i´m allowed to move however i want even in Bavaria which had the most authoritarian response in Germany. I am merely banned from having private(!) contacts with people from more than one household in open air and entirely banned from meating people at home. My impression suggests a huge amount of carelessness among those in particular that never had a real lock down at any point because they kept doing their job even during the stricktest lockdown phase without any changes to procedures – e.g. those working in construction. There is no real control system like the autocertification form in Italy. So if i wanted to break the rules, short of a huge party there is little realistic risk of getting caught and even if, fines are not particular harsh. Our local small municipality parliament could not stand the temptation to meat in person with 20 visitors allowed. Since all shopping is allowed now, the city center at the neighbouring city appears to be packed to a point where there is no way to keep a 1,5 meter distance (not going to do a personal observation on this). Stupid of course all that

More data regarding elites (governors) vs the public:
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/12/21255768/poll-governors-reopen-popular-coronavirus-pandemic

“Many state governors have seen their popularity — and approval ratings — soar since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. But according to a new poll, how popular individual governors are seems to depend on how quickly they took steps to prevent the spread of the virus and whether they’ve thus far delayed reopening.“

It rarely if ever makes sense to talk about „the elites“ as if they were a single homogeneous entity. It is one thing when political activists resort to that kind of simplification for rhetorical effect, but when academic scholars talk like that, it should really raise alarm bells.

Hix, what about the Maskenpflicht? Isn’t that pretty strong?

@79

At this point, I´m allowed to move however i want even in Baden Württemberg which had a similar response as Bayern – and I really wouldn’t want to call it a ”authoritarian” response in Germany.
I’m now allowed to have private(!) contacts with people from more than one household and yes – there seems to be some ”carelessness” among those in particular that never had a real lock down at any point because they kept doing their job.
BUT everybody I know – who kept on doing his jobs tried NOT to be as careless as for example – some – just SOME of our relatives in Lalaland – who told US – on the telephone – laughing – they don’t care a flying f…

AND that’s the thing – Right? There is no real control system here in Baden Württemberg – like the autocertification form in Italy. BUT as I spend a lot of time each year with my friends in Verona – and yes also in Bergamo – there also never was ”a system” in Germany where you just can’t get out of hugging every one of your Italian friends – three – four or even five times – each time you meet them.

AND I really miss that right now – beeing under lockdown in Germany –
AND I never ever will blame my Italian friends – that partying like Pazzo after a Soccer Win – overwhelmed their Heart Care System.

AND sometimes I really have a bad conscious that I’m so tremendously lucky – being lock-downed in Germany – as I also could be in my homeland the US right now – in a country where a Science Denying Idiot is responsible for so many Deaths of my fellow Americans – that we we all call him ”Prospero”

https://youtu.be/FLzfyMNthN8

because he didn’t do what the Germans did – TESTING and CONTAINING the virus RIGHT AWAY.
And so –
YES! – ”since all shopping is allowed now, the (medieval) city center is busy – but NOT packed to a point, where there is no way to keep a 1,5 meter distance –
and I observe it every day – more and more hopefully – and joyfully… AND NOT ”Stupid of course all that” –
As how would you say in Bayrisch: ”Azaopft isch” – again!

82, what vindicates the “failure” of Denmark, Finland, Germany and Norway in their step by step opening? If anything, those openings vindicate just the opposite – Sweden, among a cohort with a lesser epidemic problem (due to being less vulnerable to the kind of global traffic that affects Italy, Spain, France, the UK, Ireland) did the worst job of protecting its population, and it is continuing to have an increase in deaths and infections as other countries which locked down early are able to open up in relative safety. Seems a complete disaster. Sweden, however, is a country that is nationalistically committed to the Sweden must be right ideology. A pity.

PS – I like the idea that the “oopsy” about the decimation of old people was recognized by the planners, hence was part of the general success. It takes the old logic of British generals in WWI: yes, we did take perhaps 100,000 more casualties on the Sommes front, but we gave the Jerries something to think about, we did!

Dipper @ 75

You are most welcome, and thank you for continuing to provide your perspectives – while I think we fundamentally disagree on many topics, I am interested in hearing what you have to say.

Regarding conspiracy theory

This was the least important part of my post, as it was a quick question intended to get information to help me understand where this conspiracy theory was coming from:

“The belief that anyone who disagrees with you has fallen for a conspiracy theory is in itself a kind of conspiracy theory.”

If I’d said “anyone who opposes lockdown believes this conspiracy theory” or even “Dipper only opposes the lockdown because he believes this conspiracy theory” you would have a point. But I didn’t. I said “I know someone who consumes similar media, they believe this conspiracy theory, can you give insight as to where this may be coming from by letting me know if it is something you’ve seen in your overlapping media consumption?”. That doesn’t imply you believe it, it asks if you’ve seen it anywhere before.

To make an analogy if you said to me “I know a pro-EU person, they believe that Boris Johnson only support Brexit because he despises croissants, is this something which crops up in pro-EU media like The Guardian?” I wouldn’t see that as a particularly personally offensive question (after all, newspapers do get things wrong or say nonsense things) – my reply would be “to the best of my knowledge, no”.

“I think I’m entitled to be annoyed at the suggestion that I fall for conspiracy theories.”

You certainly are – which is why I didn’t suggest that. However, as I have (unintentionally) given you offense, I certainly apologise for any implication that you share conspiracy theory. I hope you will now apologise for implying my relative is stupid – after all, I’m sure you can agree people can be wrong for many reasons, and that even very smart people can be wrong.

Driving analogy

“That was exactly the UK governments ‘Herd Immunity’ policy. That we should reduce the rate of spread and avoid the spread reaching vulnerable people so health services are not overwhelmed and Herd Immunity builds. That now seems to have changed into a scheme to prevent any deaths at all,”

With respect, I think this is conflating a few ideas a bit. My understanding is that measures which reduce the rate of spread (i.e. flattening the curve to reduce strain on health services) include lockdowns (as well as widespread mask wearing, using disinfectants, etc.). That tells you little about the end goal though. To continue using driving as a metaphor (not an ideal fit, but I think serviceable from our perspective) I would break it down into problem, approach, goal, desired end state. Or, to give an example:

People die due to cars (problem), let’s institute speed limits (approach) to minimise people having accidents at high speeds (goal), which will lead to cars traveling not hitting people or objects at high speeds and so reduce deaths (desired end state).

When we plug in an equivalent for the UK government’s “herd immunity” strategy:

People die due to coronavirus (problem), let’s institute lockdown (approach) to minimise people getting infected (goal), which will lead to herd immunity without overwhelming the NHS (desired end state).

This means that the end state (in that formulation) is independent of the approach and goal. I want to highlight that, as you could use the same approach and goal regardless of the desired end state – to give an example (and I want to emphasise I don’t say this is what the desired end state should be, or that countries are selecting this, but am merely using this as an example to make the point regarding approaches and end states):

People die due to coronavirus (problem), let’s institute lockdown (approach) to minimise people getting infected (goal), which will lead to advances in treatment being developed in time to minimise deaths (desired end state).

So, even if you change what the end state is, the problem, approach, and goal can remain the same.

The reason I think this is important is because the UK government initially proposed a “herd immunity” end state but got considerable criticism for it (there are some reasons to think it is not a sensible end state, as highlighted by Chris Bertram). Now that no longer seems to be the end state.

I don’t know of anyone proposing that lockdown will prevent any deaths. I certainly haven’t seen experts saying that (if you have, I’d like the citation). My impression (and this is a purely personal one) is that because the UK government are changing what the end state is the formulation now looks like this:

People die due to coronavirus (problem), let’s institute lockdown (approach) to minimise people getting infected (goal), ??? (end state tbd). [1]

That is hardly reassuring (what the end state should be is a pretty big thing to have as a question mark at the moment) but removing the lockdown then leads to a formulation which looks like this:

People die due to coronavirus (problem), ??? (approach tbd) to ??? (goal tbd), ??? (end state tbd).

Which is significantly worse. I am making a vast oversimplification, of course, but I hope it clarifies that I (and as far as I can tell, no other CT commentator) believe that lockdown will prevent all deaths. If I were to try and make a simplistic response regarding lockdown purpose – it appears it will prevent some infections and delay others, giving more time to a) formulate and test plans of action; b) make advances in treatment (not necessarily just preventative, but also of the “will doing X lower the risk of death while they are in hospital” type); c) look at relaxation of measures (I’d hope you agree that if we relax the lockdown measure and see a spike in deaths, considering implementing lockdown measures is not unreasonable). That is just from me, of course – I am not an expert in the field, and this is just from my understanding (you are welcome to propose your own).

But, in short, all this is to say that – to the best of my knowledge – the UK government is struggling to see what the end state of the pandemic will be (which I am not sure is unique) but removing one of the tools being used to “buy time”, subsequently speeding up infection rates, may not be the best way forward.

[1] I may be wrong and they already have a desired end state in mind, but if they have I am unaware of it and would appreciate the citation to update me on this.

Ferguson model

“I’ve looked at your reference on Ferguson, but it doesn’t help your or their case.”

My case was simple, even if we assume Ferguson is completely wrong and discredited, in order to make a statement about whether or not lockdowns are useful you would have to look at all the evidence for lockdowns, not just one.

To make an analogy – we have an estimation of the age of the earth with some degree of confidence. This is done by using a wide range of tools (radiometric dating, examining the physics of planetary formation, examining extra-terrestrial samples, etc.). In order to show that the age of the earth is significantly wrong, it wouldn’t be enough to say “well, one science group has got their radiometric dating wrong”, you’d have to show that all the people who have come to a consensus regarding the age of the earth are wrong.

Or, to put it more crudely, if your plumber rips you off, does that mean that plumbing itself is all wrong and we know nothing about water pressure? (I don’t say this to insult plumbers, but to give an example of a more day-to-day field of work).

My point was, therefore, if a consensus has been achieved regarding lockdown, you have to show that the consensus is flawed, not that one individual is flawed.

Even then, at that point the most you could say is “there is no evidence that lockdowns do help”. That still doesn’t tell you if lockdowns do not help (that is then a positive claim, which would need to be demonstrated).

So, even if you demonstrate conclusively that Ferguson’s model is so flawed that we cannot accept the conclusions (not yet done), you then have to examine all the other evidence supporting lockdowns piece by piece – otherwise you are just cherry picking.

” it was the code review articles that undermined the scientific case”

I’ve yet to see you cite these code review articles, which is unfortunate as that means I have no way of evaluating the criticisms. What you do cite is an article on WUWT (which is a website I have found somewhat limited in terms of validity in the past) which quotes “Sue Denim” (which isn’t actually her name[2]) who has some criticisms. Going back from that link (you cite an article which actually cites a website) just goes to a different website where we learn the author is anonymous, and not publishing their findings in a peer reviewed journal (where it can be criticised by actual experts in the field).

So, basically, the only thing you have cited is a website, which links to an anonymous allegation about a different model which hasn’t been peer reviewed (it is an article on the website “Lockdown Sceptics”, who I can’t help but suspect may have a slight implicit bias here[3]).

You’ll forgive me if I don’t see this as a smoking gun. While I won’t assert the counter positive, I have grave concerns that “Sue Denim” has not yet subjected their work to robust analysis. Now you might quite reasonably raise concerns regarding Imperial’s work, and transparency in general – I encourage everyone, including “Sue Denim” to do so (contra to their claims). But, if you are being intellectually honest, you then have to submit the criticisms to criticism – otherwise you are engaging in exactly the same behaviour you are accusing others of.

[2] “Sue Denim” claims they don’t want to reveal their identity for fear of retribution and because they hate “credentialism”. The issue I take with this is the reason we publish papers is so they can be evaluated by experts in the field. “Sue” may have made huge mistakes which are not obvious to me, because I am not an expert. Also “Sue” says “average citizens like myself are told we should never question “expertise”” – which is something I’ve never heard in my many years of working in science. Normally the response is not “never question expertise” but “submit your work to somewhere it can be properly evaluated” – it is a pity Sue has declined to do so.

[3] It is worth noting that “Sue Denim” doesn’t just say this is a problem with Ferguson – she says “I’d go further and suggest that all academic epidemiology be defunded. This sort of work is best done by the insurance sector.” I wonder how Sue has come to the conclusion that all of epidemiology (not just one group making one specific model, but the entire field, including all experimental work which has nothing to do with modeling) is fundamentally flawed – that would seem to be a bit of an overreach in order to extrapolate from one example. It is also worth noting that “Sue” criticises a small research group at a university for not, in a few weeks, producing a model up the standards of google (a multi-billion dollar company). One might wonder if there may be a reason for that other than “all scientists are idiots”, and if it may have to do with not having sufficient funding to hire the personel to do so. It is also interesting that despite “Sue” and many others essentially saying “I can do better than that”, they have sadly declined to do so yet.

” the Scientific establishment who are undermined by the criticism of Ferguson’s code, not (just) Ferguson. If you are the head of something your job is largely to uphold standards, because if you don’t then why should anyone else? So senior people in academia need to think hard right now about the standards of coding they expect.”

Firstly, and I say this as nicely as I can, you are horribly, horribly confused about how science should work and the scientific method. We do not have such a formal hierarchy, where “senior people” decide what is and isn’t “science”. What we have is a variety of methods to try and get the most accurate understanding of reality – including one of the most powerful (though by no means 100% perfect), peer review. Essentially, work submitted to a reputable journal is sent out to reviewers who can read it, offer criticisms, and (if there are serious flaws) reject it. This doesn’t mean that we then get to make a proclamation of truth – all research is tentative and only given a level of confidence proportional to the evidence supporting it. The particular citation given by “Sue Denim” is for an online white paper article – i.e. where something is published on line but acknowledged to have not undergone peer-review (and so, as any expert in the field will tell you, results are proposed far more tentatively).

What I find quite hilarious about this is that even in the one and only reference you give, “Sue Denim” notes that Imperial and Edenborough are going through a process of discussing potential issues with the model and then working to resolve them. So the model is being reviewed, issues are being found by relevant experts in the field, and discussion regarding how to address it ensues. Apparently this fairly normal process of engaging in peer review to discuss issues now demonstrates an entire field is wrong. Yet it is the experts in the field who are highlighting the concerns in the first place. So essentially you are arguing that experts in the field highlighting concerns with the coding proves experts in the field are not evaluating the coding. Well, ok then[4].

For a more balanced view of how models have been employed to give tentative conclusions (which are in the process of being refined), I would recommend this Nature News feature [5].

It is also worth noting that Ferguson testified to Parliment he would expect UK deaths to top out at about 20,000. UK deaths are at approximately at 33,000. So he is wrong, but perhaps not in the way you’d expect.

[4] This reminds me a lot of “emailgate”, where after sifting through the illegally hacked emails of Michael Mann phrases were deliberately taken out of context [5] and heralded as proof that the entire field of climate research was nonsense. Needless to say, those responsible for promulgating this have yet to offer a retraction, or to offer up their own models for review.

[5] https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

[6] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6

” The notion that had the UK locked down earlier thousand of lives would have been saved for instance is just supposition.”

There is some experimental data (since you don’t trust models) that countries with lockdowns flatten the curve far more rapidly than those which delay. Now, you are correct we do not have a placebo UK to compare to, so it is impossible to say with certainty, but there does seem to be some evidence to support this notion – not certainty, not conclusively, but enough to suggest it may be the case. We may never know. However, to borrow from you:

“I don’t know whether the lockdown is necessary.”…” But conclusive evidence is hard so everything is a judgement.”

South Korea has not instituted a lockdown, but does have a very aggressive trace-and-test approach. If the UK government had followed that path, I don’t know the results would be much worse. Another approach, certainly, but as you say, a lot of the societal response will have to be a series of judgement calls (based on data, but also accounting for what measures are practical – trace and test will only work if you have the ability to carry it out, after all).

So, one approach is to “overreact” by instituting a lockdown, then to relax measures (first not going to work, then going to work but only for essential workers, going to work for more people but wearing masks and using hand wash, etc. etc.) little-by-little to look for spikes, then clamp back down again if there is a resurgence. Many countries seem to be taking this approach – including the UK.

I don’t see this as excessively problematic, I wonder why you do?

It is funny to hear these weird theories about “herd immunity” when recent history shows, pretty decisively, that what is needed is quarantine. The SARS virus that threatened to become pandemic in 2003 didn’t become a pandemic. The reason was not because of a vaccine, or some immunity acquired by the population. It was because the Chinese government, after covering up the beginning of the epidemic, shut down Guangdong province. As Mike Davis wrote in Monster at the Door: “In Guangdong, 80 million people were mobilized to clean houses and streets. In the countryside, virtually every village was on SARS alert, with roadside booths installed to examine all those who entered or left.” To the surprise of many, these draconian quarantines—“momentous measures” says Yanzhong Huang—seemed to work. The spread of the SARS epidemic inside China was arrested, and in late June the WHO canceled its warnings about travel to Hong Kong and Beijing.121
While the drama inside China was unfolding, a WHO-organized virtual consortium of laboratories was working night and day to discover the cause of SARS. Within a month, this unprecedented research effort, spearheaded by Malik Peiris and his colleagues in Hong Kong and Shenzhen, had isolated a coronavirus. Although scientists were greatly relieved that it was not “the Big One” (an influenza pandemic) after all, they were flabbergasted that a member of a viral family normally associated with mild colds and diarrhea had become an international serial killer. And as researchers sequenced the genome of the SARS virus, they found little link to any of the known human-adapted members of the family. The SARS virus was genetically sui generis.”
If China had instituted “Swedish” rules in 2003, it is a safe bet that the Sars virus would have swept the world, just like our current corona is doing. It is nonsense to think that we are going to reach “herd immunity”. Sweden is banking on the virus only killing old people and immigrants, and they might be right on the bet this time, but these viruses are evolving in environments that favor them, and the next time they might have to bet on them killing kids. And they will make that bet, I’d bet. Because that is acceptable casualties from the point of view of an ideology that values a form of the economy much more than the people who are supposed to be the end purpose of it.

Melvin: „According to epidemiologists, essentially all infections happen either at home, in work, or on public transport to/from work.“

„According to epidemiologists“ is a dangerous phrase to use… It is strongly suspected that mass events, like soccer matches, have played an important role in the spread of the Virus in Italy, which is why virtually all countries moved quickly to ban those.
And I’m not aware of any reason why infection while shopping should be any less likely than at work. Most of us spend far more time at work, that is true, but then it also depends a lot on the kind of work you do. And I could add more objections.

I’m sure you are aware of this. The point is, try to avoid simplification. Just work really hard to avoid them. We don’t need them, we really don’t.

Despite having been shown very clearly the numbers dipper is on here arguing that maybe cars kill more people than covid. He really is beyond reach.

It’s worth remembering that Sweden’s response is far from nothing – banning large gatherings, closing high schools and universities, and encouraging home working is actually quite a large change. If that leads to manageable growth of the virus that’s an interesting outcome, but as case numbers grow and time passes the possibility that it slips out of control also grows. Their results are not comparable to Vietnam, NZ or Australia where cases were much smaller due to early and strict interventions.

“We failed to protect our elderly. That’s really serious, and a failure for society as a whole. We have to learn from this, we’re not done with this pandemic yet,” Health and Social Affairs Minister Lena Hallengren told Swedish Television recently.

https://www.france24.com/en/20200510-sweden-admits-failure-to-protect-elderly-in-care-homes

The very same thing happened in the UK, carers infecting residents due to lack of PPE, no testing whatsoever and poor working conditions – it’s a heartbreaking scandal and of course could have been prevented, but nobody gave a damn.

But hey, I’m sure they’ll all be pleased if carl d comes around for a little reading of Marcus Aurelius – seriously, is there any humanity left?

It’s fascinating to see this debate playing out between Sweden (semi-effective semi-lockdown) and the UK (ineffective full lockdown) rather than say Sweden and Japan, or Sweden and South Korea, or Sweden and Oz, or Sweden and NZ, or indeed Sweden and any province of China outside of Hubei. How many cases and deaths were there in Fujian or Zhejiang or Guangdong? How do those provinces’ actions compare to Sweden? Or Sweden (28,000 cases) and Japan (15,000 cases) where Sweden is now seeing >500 cases a day and Japan <100. Sweden has 3500 deaths compared to Japan’s 600. Japan had a moderate lockdown after implementing an early and more successful version of Sweden’s approach. The Japanese lockdown began when Japan was seeing about 250 cases a day, when Japan’s new case curve was about a week delayed from Sweden’s. Since then there has been maybe one day when Japan saw more cases than Sweden, and the lockdown is now going to end in much of Japan just 6 weeks after it started, and in some remaining prefectures 8 weeks after it started. Yet that Unherd article Carl D links to compares Sweden’s policy with the UK’s vastly incompetent approach.

This is another example of how westerners just cannot look east, and have to faff about trying to make bad policy from each others’ mistakes, instead of looking to places that work. When stacked against pretty much anywhere in Asia, Sweden’s approach is disastrous. I bet they end up having to lockdown anyway in a few week’s time, but will just have wasted 5000 lives getting there.

AND did we finally get the answer – we also asked here –
from –
”The Trump Death Clock” ?

”A digital billboard in New York City’s Times Square targeting President Donald Trump’s early inaction on coronavirus reached a grave milestone on Wednesday, as it ticked over to an estimated 50,000 preventable deaths. The “Trump Death Clock” projects a running counter of deaths, which according to two leading epidemiologists, could have been avoided had social distancing measures been implemented earlier. Eugene Jarecki, the Emmy and Peabody award-winning director behind political documentaries, such as “Why We Fight” and “The House I Live In” and the sign’s creator, said the counter was in the same “symbolic spirit” as the National Debt Clock, which already hangs in the city. The Death Clock, he said, measures “the cost in human lives of President Trump and his team’s reckless handling of the coronavirus pandemic.” Epidemiologists Dr. Britta L. Jewell and Nicolas P. Jewell estimated a 60% reduction in deaths had mitigation measures been enacted on March 9. Despite experts sounding the alarm as early as January, Trump was still calling coronavirus a hoax at the end of February and, on the crucial March 9 marker, was contrasting it with “the common flu.”

@96

Communist fascists, eh? The worst kind.

Faustusnotes:

How many cases and deaths were there in Fujian or Zhejiang or Guangdong?

Who knows? The Chinese government routinely lies for propaganda purposes and the small number of citizen journalists who originally reported on what was happening have been intimidated and silenced by Chinese Communist Party jackbooted goons. The official Chinese government figures are completely untrustworthy.

We do know, however, that the Popular People’s Province of Guangdong killed 29 people by putting them in a quarantine hotel that collapsed. I wouldn’t call that a shining example of good policy to be emulated but maybe I’m just a little old fashioned.

Faustusnotes again:

This is another example of how westerners just cannot look east….

Nonsense. Plenty of westerners have looked East, including to free and democratic Taiwan, which has recorded just 7 deaths and no new cases in over a week. Unlike fascist China, Taiwan has done this without oppressive censorship, without goon squads intimidating the populace, without welding people into buildings, without dragging doctors into police stations and forcing them to shut up and sign manufactured confessions on pain of imprisonment, and without all the other depravities associated with dictator-for-life Xi Jinping’s iron rule.

Faustusnotes knows full well that my arguments about deaths due to traffic accidents provide prior evidence of society’s attitude to ‘avoidable’ deaths which serve as a reference point for future decisions. I didn’t claim that numbers were comparable, but Faustusnotes, as well all know by now, likes nothing better than tilting at windmills.

Here’s some analysis of prediction and fact from Sweden. Basically it says the numbers are far less than predicted for the more relaxed Swedish regime and speculates that is due to changes in behaviour not captured in the models. Lots of graphs and numbers, Faustusnotes, right up your boulevard.

@notGoodenough thank you again for the time spend on that lengthy and considered reply.

I apologise to your relative. I didn’t mean to imply he was stupid. Neil Ferguson was pro-EU so I can see where he gets his notion from.

I think your description of the logic transformation over the time so far of the virus is correct. The onslaught from opposition, media, and some academics is forcing the government from a position with logic but a cost to a position for which there is no objective. To summarise, if there are no rational grounds for entering into a policy then there is no rational way of exiting it.

I do think there is a logic to the lockdown that is about saving lives overall. In effect, it is the one you stated, buying time for a vaccine/improved management development, or trying to get the incidence down so low that a contact tracing methodology can be applied to limit spread. On that point, rogergathmann‘s comparison with SARS seems to have a significant flaw, in that I understand SARS produced symptoms in everyone who got it so identifying carriers was feasible. Covid is asymptomatic in some spreaders so there is an extra degree of difficulty. I do find many of the international comparisons to be arguments of the ‘I wouldn’t start from here’ variety and at best are irritating and irrelevant.

Re Ferguson’s code, I am right on this. Trust me. To use your plumber analogy, If I hired a plumber through a trusted trader scheme and they were rubbish, and I went back to the scheme and they said well, unlucky, but we have ones who are better, then you would soon lose faith with the trusted trader scheme. The point about a trusted trader scheme is it is meant to guarantee a standard. On academia you state “We do not have such a formal hierarchy, where “senior people” decide what is and isn’t “science””, but you do implicitly. There are research councils who police grants. There is peer review. There is an implicit trusted academic scheme in the letter re Ferguson linked above where other academics are claiming him as their own.

The thing about computer code, as everyone who has done it knows, is it is really hard to get your code to do exactly what you want in all circumstances. The opportunity for mistakes is endless. So the presumption amongst most software development in my experience is that the onus is on the programmer to demonstrate the programme works, not on others to prove that it doesn’t. Good development teams will be eager to show people the supporting evidence for their work in terms off specification, control, and testing. In my experience, if you cannot easily find that evidence, that is because the evidence isn’t there, and if it isn’t there then it hasn’t been done. And if the testing hasn’t been done then the code won’t do what it is intended to do.

Dipper @75
“Were we seriously going to quarantine 50,000 people for two weeks?”

Why on earth not? It is not even difficult.

Dipper @ 107

Firstly, thank you for your apology. I think it is important that, even though we may disagree vehemently on our beliefs we still maintain respect for people (if not their views). This also seems to be your position, and I appreciate your taking the time – particularly in these difficult days. I would also like to take the opportunity to say that despite our many disagreements (and no doubt I frustrate you as much as the reverse!) I sincerely hope things are going well for you and everyone in the UK – it is a stressful time, so I hope you’ll join me in enjoying a beverage of your choice and taking a moment to relax when you can.

Secondly I want to examine the concern you have regarding (what I believe might reasonably be called) “the system”, and offer some points for your consideration. This is rather a long post, so I am confining it to essentially the topic of “re Ferguson’s model” and the context in which this model exists. However, it is very important to note I am not defending Ferguson’s model itself (I lack expertise to evaluate the model or the criticisms of the model), instead what I wish to do is make the case that whatever issues there may be with this one specific model do not in fact necessarily reflect badly on epidemiology and science as a whole.

This is a bit long, so I’ve split it into a couple of posts.

With that said, let’s look at the context of the Ferguson model, and how much confidence has actually been put in it – and by the field of epidemiology in particular.

A look at the paper in which the “Ferguson model” was actually used part 1

You may not be aware of this, and maybe “Sue Denim” wasn’t either, but one important thing to note about the paper referenced is that it is a non-peer reviewed white paper. What does that mean? To take from medRxiv (who published an alternative model from Oxford):

Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by “peer review.” In this process, the journal’s editors take advice from various experts—called “referees”—who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions. Typically a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed referees’ concerns and that the data presented support the conclusions drawn in the paper.

Because this process can be lengthy, authors use the medRxiv service to make their manuscripts available as “preprints” before certification by peer review, allowing other scientists to see, discuss, and comment on the findings immediately. Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.

We also urge journalists and other individuals who report on medical research to the general public to consider this when discussing work that appears on medRxiv preprints and emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and the information presented may be erroneous.”

Emphasis mine. Note that this description would reasonably apply to any non-peer reviewed journal (I selected this one for its excellent clarity and the specific mention of journalists or other individuals, as well as the fact that it publishes a different – and arguably competing – model).

So, it is critically important to note Ferguson’s model was not subject to peer review, nor had it been assessed by the wider scientific community. This means the level of confidence in it (by anyone who knows this) should of course be proportionally lower. As I have just noted, medRxiv have a rather large and fulsome disclaimer before any such work for exactly that reason – and anyone launching criticism of science as a whole might do well to consider that context first.

This is because, at least to me, criticising the scientific community for not previously reviewing work published in a form which does not undertake peer review would seem to be a little unfair. To borrow the analogy again, you are essentially pointing to an as-yet uncertified piece of plumbing and then criticising the trusted trader scheme (and implicitly all plumbers everywhere) for not making sure it meets your standards.

Or, to put it another way, the criteria you are now using to suggest problems with the way science is carried out (particularly in epidemiology) is: Flaws in a tentative model with a big disclaimer about the unproven nature of its results means that the way we carry out science is fundamentally flawed.

I hope you can appreciate why I am concerned with people pointing to a tentatively proposed model with disclaimers about its preliminary nature, pointing out flaws in it, then drawing the conclusion that if there are flaws in a preliminary model it means the whole of epidemiology and science must be flawed. That would be a bit like asking a plumber for an estimate for a job they don’t have information to evaluate, them giving you a rough and non-legally binding guess while caveating it “look mate, until I see it I can’t be sure, but based on what you’ve said I’d guess £5,000 – but don’t take that as gospel, it is just a guess”, and then if their figure is wrong you write a letter to parliament arguing the trusted trader scheme is corrupt and should be abolished immediately.

Now one reasonable question you might want to ask is why publish non-peer reviewed work in the first place – surely if it skips the process of peer review it is worthless?

Well, the main reason for publishing un-refereed work (as I understand it, though I should note it is non-existent in my field due to the different nature of the work) is to put models out there for people to evaluate. Essentially you are trying to get rapid feedback or access to expertise you may not have. And, it is worth noting, that this was in fact happening long before criticisms of the coding were made[1].

So we have a situation where an academic has published their preliminary model as an un-refereed paper[2]. This work tentatively proposes a model to give insight into what measures may be useful, and is disseminated to the scientific community for evaluation and criticism. Edinburgh point out some problems with the coding (which, as you say, may be a result of people not familiar with coding making mistakes) to Imperial. Work is commencing on revising the code, presumably to fix these problems and help develop a better model.

If I am to take it that this means there is a big problem somewhere which now undermines the credibility of science then I’m sorry, but I am currently missing it.

A look at the paper in which the “Ferguson model” was actually used part 3

It may also be worth looking at the language used in the paper:

“Our estimates of mortality and healthcare demand are based on data from China and high-income countries; differences in underlying health conditions and healthcare system capacity will likely result in different patterns in low income settings.”

“estimates”

“Our analysis therefore suggests that healthcare demand can only be kept within manageable levels through the rapid adoption of public health measures”

“suggests”

“Our analysis highlights the challenging decisions faced by all governments in the coming weeks and months, but demonstrates the extent to which rapid, decisive and collective action now could save millions of lives.”

“could”

So now we are at the stage where any faults found in the tentative model used to generate suggestions and potential implications (with a big disclaimer about the unproven nature of these results) is enough to cause considerable concern with the entire field of epidemiology (including all empirical work).

Now while there appear to be some reasons to have concerns regarding “Sue”’s evaluation[3] (I am not an expert, so I won’t pretend to know whether the evaluation or the criticisms of the evaluation are fair), I won’t address that (I doubt I could in any meaningful fashion) and instead would posit that the context alone renders the judgement that this represents a major blow to the credibility of science a little bit of an overreach.

I appreciate that people require a high standard to have reasonable confidence, but this is akin to if I read an internal thread of people testing and discussing an early alpha build, saw that problems were being raised, and then demanded that anyone who codes or uses software be fired on the basis that one particular engineer isn’t following what I consider to be best practice. That would seem a pretty high bar to be set.

It may also be worth looking at what Ferguson has said[4]:

“Governments across the world are relying on mathematical projections to help guide decisions in this pandemic. Computer simulations account for only a fraction of the data analyses that modelling teams have performed in the crisis, Ferguson notes, but they are an increasingly important part of policymaking. But, as he and other modellers warn, much information about how SARS-CoV-2 spreads is still unknown and must be estimated or assumed — and that limits the precision of forecasts. “

Emphasis mine.

“We’re building simplified representations of reality. Models are not crystal balls,” Ferguson says.”

That does not sound like Ferguson is proclaiming their model is foundational to epidemiological response, or even a highly accurate representation of reality – it sounds like he is suggesting that they are tentatively making a “best guess” based on incomplete information, and that even then we should be cautious.

Now this doesn’t mean that Ferguson (or Oxford, or indeed anyone) is above criticism. We only have to point to the criticisms made by other scientists to substantiate that! But I feel that if you have concerns with something, the best way to deal with that would be to get in contact to raise those concerns (and maybe even get involved in the work, and getting your name on a paper!), or failing that submit your criticisms in a forum where other experts can evaluate your comments and see if they make sense or not (i.e. act as a peer reviewer – and trust me, peer reviewers in high demand because it is an unpaid job with a lot of work!). It is a pity (and I mean that most sincerely) that “Sue” has declined to follow either course of action – instead writing an article on an obscure website where it is unlikely to generate much attention from those who could actually evaluate it. Given that one of “Sue”’s main criticisms is that Imperial failed to run their work past people able to evaluate it first, it seems slightly ironic (dare I suggest even hypocritical) of “Sue” to then engage in the very behaviour they rail against (the issue being, of course, that if “Sue” is wrong at all, it would be difficult for any non-expert to know).

David Hume (sorry for mentioning him again – I swear I’m trying to cut down to only twice a week) has taught us that our confidence in something is proportional to the evidence. This is why scientists typically demonstrate not just their work, but also the degree of confidence to have in their work (something recent with little support should be treated more cautiously than something with far more evidence behind it).

Any worthwhile scientist know this, so would apportion far less confidence to a tentative model which is acknowledged to potentially be flawed than they would to a wide range of different models well verified by a range of relevant experts. There is an old saying often trotted out when purveyors of nonsense try to point to their own made up journals as proof of their fantastical claims (much as if I were to start the “Journal of Why notGoodenough is Awesome” and start pointing to articles there). The saying goes like this “peer review is only as good as the quality of the peers” – in short, if your work is only reviewed by people lacking expertise (or no-one at all) then pretty much most scientists will treat it as a tentative guess at best (or, in my particular case, not even consider it at all). That is also the case with Ferguson – if you had showed the paper to me prior to any of this and asked me what confidence I have in it, firstly I’d say “why ask me and not someone who actually understands this stuff?”, but if you put a gun to my head and demand I evaluate it I would point to it not being peer reviewed as being a reason I would be very cautious of any claims being made (though I would caveat my reply by repeatedly making the point “you do know I don’t understand this, please ask a real epidemiologist!”), and that would be without even having to see any code at all. I would also have the same comments about the Oxford model (and only in part because their article literally says that as well!). I would also be shocked if the majority of scientists didn’t agree with that[6]. However, it is worth noting that that isn’t the question being asked – and “what confidence would you have in the claims made in this specific paper?” is rather different to “should all epidemiologists be fired?”, and so likely elicits rather different answers.

However, I would also posit that if you are caveating your work as preliminary, un-refereed, and full of estimates and assumptions, I’m not sure that you can do much more to point out how not-yet-validated it is. If you are also engaged in the process of running it by other experts (including experts in coding) to get their feedback, I feel pointing to the feedback being provided that this early alpha build is flawed would seem to me to more reasonably provoke a “no duh – let’s fix it or build a better model” level of response rather than a furious demand that all of epidemiology research must be stopped in the middle of a pandemic.

That is just my opinion, of course, but to make yet another analogy: do you think that any bugs or sloppiness found in any alpha code from any developer means that all software engineers should be fired and all software companies nationalised? I would posit that might be a little of an overreaction.

One major criticism being levelled at the field is “lack of transparency”. Firstly, if a big disclaimer to be careful with these results because they are tentative isn’t enough transparency for you, here’s another thing to consider. You know who have been complaining about lack of transparency since forever? Who repeatedly write about it, and are ignored because no-one outside academia really cares? Scientists and researchers[7]!

To be frank, if the private sector actually demonstrates as much honesty and external transparency, I’ll be prepared to consider the privatisation suggestion (though it would have to be a pretty good case). If it is demonstrated that the majority of scientists working in a field are grossly negligent, I’ll support the idea of revamping that field. But until those things are actually demonstrated, I am not convinced the entire field of epidemiology – let alone science as a whole – has been damaged beyond all repair by the discovery of sloppy code in one tentative alpha version of a model published in one-non peer reviewed paper. You can disagree of course, but I would like the case to be made for why.

Another criticism which I feel might be made is “why did the government act on this if it was so preliminary”? Well, that isn’t a scientific question; it is a political and policy question[8]. However, firstly I don’t know the level of impact this single model had (e.g. what other evidence or models the government had and how many caveats it was presented with), and secondly the government may be making a lot of additional judgement calls (e.g. what will be the fallout if we don’t act vs. do act, what is the best and worst case in either of those scenarios, and what will be the political, social, and economic fallout – and it is perhaps worth noting that the Ferguson paper carefully states that these points were beyond the scope of their work and were not, therefore, not considered by them).

If you are really concerned about the degree that governments may be led astray, I actually agree[9] that that is a valid concern – the lack of basic epistemology amongst many people is shocking, and all the more so amongst people in positions of power such as politicians and journalists. If you actually wanted to significantly address this, my proposal would be to lobby the government to ring fence funding for a fully independent “black hat” institution (where any experts employed are done so solely by that institute, and are carefully handled to prevent “academic capture”) to evaluate or question any technical foundations going to inform government action. I would happily join you in doing so (to me it is a great tragedy that there is no funding for reproducing results – if you’re worried about improving scientific robustness, get some funding for that). But since this organisation doesn’t exist (no-one seems interested in paying for it) and the only option currently available to scientists is to put work out to be reviewed by peers, it seems odd that the comments of those peers raising issues is now being used to say that there is a huge flaw in the whole system.

Maybe I am wrong (I try to avoid assumptions as much as possible), but I think much of the criticisms about the field of epidemiology is a bit of an overreaction to people feeling they’ve been misled. I would ask that people should try and look at it in a bit more depth at the actual context and state of the field of research before jumping to conclusions[10].

Finally, I offer an apology to everyone for making a huge wall of text and probably annoying everyone quite a lot. In particular I’d like to apologise to Eszter Hargittai.

I only do so because I feel criticism of science is important, but should be undertaken with care – otherwise it can easily lead to a sence of nihlistic “we can’t trust anything”.

As I say, this post was mostly to make the point that whatever one may think of the Ferguson model, it has hardly been proposed as set in stone by anyone (least of all Imperial). And, to the best of my knowledge, most UK experts are in broad agreement regarding the importance of social distancing, and have come to that perspective irrespective of Ferguson and based on their own lines of research.

That isn’t to say they couldn’t be wrong, but so far there is no evidence for gross negligence in the field. I also suspect that the tentative ideas as of now will solidify as we go on. But, as I’ve said before, given that waiting for that evidence requires waiting for people to die, I feel it would not be unreasonable to propose it is better to overreact than react not at all.

Best wishes to all in this difficult period.

… Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, … [A]t any moment the situation can suddenly reverse itself and yesterday’s proved-to-the-hilt atrocity story can become a ridiculous lie, merely because the political landscape has changed.
… [O]fficial war propaganda, with its disgusting hypocrisy and self-righteousness, always tends to make thinking people sympathize with the enemy. … There was even a tendency to feel that … atrocities had become, as it were, retrospectively untrue because the … Government now drew attention to them.
But unfortunately the truth about atrocities is far worse than that they are lied about and made into propaganda. The truth is that they happen. … These things really happened, that is the thing to keep one’s eye on. They happened even though [a leading right-wing politician] said they happened. … [T]hey did not happen any the less because [a right-wing media source] has suddenly found out about them when it is five years too late.

George Orwell, ‘Looking Back On The Spanish War’

I have visited Sweden since 1983 and am a Permanent Resident since 2009. Of course I am decent at the language. It is difficult to explain the situation, since the press conferences are woefully insufficient. My take is that the Public Health Authority FHM is going for herd immunity while ignoring the Lockdown alternative. Their restrictions are ineffective, on March 11 or 12th testing and tracking became minimal, as happened in the UK and Holland. That is only compatible with HI hopes. Indeed, Anders Tegnell and Johan Giesecke have said as much, mainly in Swedish. They hope to infect as many as possible and have predicted HI for May…Now June. Then what? Recent WHO advice rejects this (Mike Ryan’s video was manipulated to suggest support for FHM, WHO corrected that). Turns out that very few were infected in Spain and it is unknown how many there have produced antibodies and if they confer immunity and in what strength.
……In my estimation FHM are acting immorally, by rejecting Lockdowns out of hand. They most likely will lead to fewer deaths than an uncontroled infection spread with a goal that might be unreacheable. This is the reason for Johnson’s about face on March 26 I think. Nobody has refuted that, one prediction of Imperial Report 9. I’m afraid the future in Sweden is deadlier than is necessary, thanks to FHM.

Just watched the janitor of an elderly home standing at best half a meter away from two external garden worker chatting for fifteen minutes. His mask did not cover his nose and at the end he was trying to shake hands, which the garden worker probably only stoped because he saw me watching in more and more shock.
Not quite sure what to make of this. The sad and still positive interpretation would be that this was common all the time and we still got significant improvments. The catastrophic less likely one would be that this is new and we will see an explosion of cases soon. The covid measures efficiency are a mix of both how usefull they are and how high compliance rates are. My guess for now is that many asian nations did alright with soft measures because they had high compliance rates. Shutting down schools is a pretty drastic measure in many ways – the economic cost is also much more significant long run than shutting down shops for a year. The positive beaty of it is that it not only avoids the contagion risk at school, the parents are also pretty much forced to stay home. One of Swedens mistakes was probably that they could ensure widespread compliance to measures that can not possibly be controled by just asking nicely without even ordering. That was a bit too much to expect, even from Swedes. Even less so if they beat arround the bush about herd immunity, which is like begging young people to be as careless as possible.

The real interesting part is to look at nations that in general are rather careless about government ordered rules. At first you would expect them to not care at all about corona rules – at least a significant majorty which is enough for a catastroph and Germans to comply at least as much as they comply to not going over an empty street at the pedestrian crossing when the traffic lights are red. At this point, we can already say that is not quite what happened. While that could be explained in Italy or Spain simply by how bad things before measures were taken, that explanation does not hold for example for the Czech republic. And they seem to do quite well. A certain elment of flexibility and creativity in behaviour patterns might also help to switch to a catastrofe mode more easily where strict rules are obied and also sort of invented (consider how Czech started the self made mask wearing early on and quite strict among Europeans).